• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Raptor Lake Leaks

Soldato
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
4,139
Yes, he's a machine, Intel model Dave2150 from the future, sent to save us from AMD's thinking machines :D

Just gonna point out once more that Intel's 7nm was delayed. This is the fact that needs to be grokked I think, before speculating on what they will release this year.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
4,139
The point I was making there is that whatever Intel had planned for 2022 on their 7nm EUV process, it got shelved when they ran into problems with it.

So after the 12th generation release, anything else they release this year hasn't been part of any multi-year plan, nor is it an enviable position for Intel to find themselves in.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
4,139

I got it a bit wrong actually, Intel's 7nm chips were originally planned for Q4 2021!

The reason for the delay was "the company identified a 'defect mode' in the 7nm process that resulted in 'yield degradation' when manufacturing the chips".

Any time you want to concede that I have a point is good :D
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Posts
6,805
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
7nm slipped twice again after that article was published.

When Intel rebranded their nodes last year, "Intel 4" was listed as Q3 2022. Then after that (but I can't find the source) it was bumped again to 2023 at some point, with rumours suggesting that Meteor Lake's laptop SKUs were going to be the first Intel 4 product.

Raptor Lake, being a refinement of Alder Lake, was never going to be on 7nm/Intel 4. Sapphire Rapids also was 10nm SuperFIN. Even if Intel 4 landed in Q2 this year, no actual products are scheduled until next year.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
8,627

Intel 13th Gen Core “Raptor Lake” desktop CPU to feature up to 68MB of L2/L3 cache​



Further confirmation of P core changes including increased L2 cache in each P core, as well as increased L3 cache. Oh and of course, 8 extra 'E' cores.

Can't wait to upgrade!
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,228
Location
Melksham
Poor Dave, it's been a slow news week so he's had to bump his thread with some rehashed old news :(

Old news that isn't even that impressive given the vast majority of the cache increase, and 100% of the L3 increase, is down to E-cores which nobody cares about. Sad times for the Intel Shills.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
5,042
More e-cores would make sense if they were new hedt cpus, but don't see the point in more than 8, except for content creation. I wouldn't bother putting more in the i5s either.

Seems like i3 and i5 are going to be the new gaming CPUs and i7 and i9 will just be for rendering and stuff :confused:
 
Associate
Joined
14 Nov 2005
Posts
1,282

Intel 13th Gen Core “Raptor Lake” desktop CPU to feature up to 68MB of L2/L3 cache​



Further confirmation of P core changes including increased L2 cache in each P core, as well as increased L3 cache. Oh and of course, 8 extra 'E' cores.

Can't wait to upgrade!
Ok so you wont answer me question about your definition of architecture (RTL is not new architecture) but how about your definition of confirmed? The article clearly states right at the top "supposedly" this to me does not equal confirmed. Irrelevant of all these leaks you keep posting it will not change the one fact we have about RTL and that is that it only has performance gains of up to double digits, which is poor. That is not even a leak and was published by Intel themselves
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Posts
6,805
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
...but don't see the point in more than 8, except for content creation
I don't see the point in them at all when you could just make your cores power down to almost nothing, or even turn off completely. Pretty sure I'd also want to run my renders on the P cores for full power and get the job done faster, rather than tootle along on a bunch of baby cores significantly less performant just because they run a bit cooler.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
5,042
I don't see the point in them at all when you could just make your cores power down to almost nothing, or even turn off completely. Pretty sure I'd also want to run my renders on the P cores for full power and get the job done faster, rather than tootle along on a bunch of baby cores significantly less performant just because they run a bit cooler.

I thought they all worked together for those kind of tasks, do they not?
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Posts
6,805
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
I thought they all worked together for those kind of tasks, do they not?
They do indeed, but was it ever established that 4 Gracemont cores is more performant than a single hyperthreaded Golden Cove core? If they're not, then I'd rather have 2 Golden Coves, not 8 Gracemonts. If they are, then I'd rather have 32 Gracemonts, not 8 Golden Coves. And in either event, have them power down to nothing when not in use.

Alder Lake as a package is ultimately impressive, but the actual logic behind it is utterly bonkers, arguably pointless and driven purely by Intel's inability to make a CPU core that doesn't require a Thorium generator to power and the exposed surface of Mars to cool.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
40,708
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I don't see the point in them at all when you could just make your cores power down to almost nothing, or even turn off completely. Pretty sure I'd also want to run my renders on the P cores for full power and get the job done faster, rather than tootle along on a bunch of baby cores significantly less performant just because they run a bit cooler.

Because Intel still can't scale up full cores efisiently, that's why they have these half cores to start with, its nothing to do with power efficiency, AMD's Zen 3 laptop chips are still more efficient than these in laptop form.

They can't get core counts up without blowing power budgets and die sizes so they just keep piling on these half cores and pretend its a revolutionary thing.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
5,042
They do indeed, but was it ever established that 4 Gracemont cores is more performant than a single hyperthreaded Golden Cove core? If they're not, then I'd rather have 2 Golden Coves, not 8 Gracemonts. If they are, then I'd rather have 32 Gracemonts, not 8 Golden Coves. And in either event, have them power down to nothing when not in use.

Alder Lake as a package is ultimately impressive, but the actual logic behind it is utterly bonkers, arguably pointless and driven purely by Intel's inability to make a CPU core that doesn't require a Thorium generator to power and the exposed surface of Mars to cool.

Hmm, I can only find direct comparisons to skylake, they said they can fit four gracemont cores in the same die space as one skylake core and I think rocket Lake was about 20% on skylake and alder Lake was about 40%.

So, presumably they offer more multi-threaded performance for the die space.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
40,708
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
So you've already decided to buy the 13900K then, what happened to getting Zen4/AM5 if it was better? Oh that's right it was a totally load of tosh, I've seen clear pieces of glass that are less transparent than you. :cry:

He bought the 11900K the instant it was available and then spent the rest of his time trying to justify that purchase.

I think people should buy what they want, but the 10900K was every way a better CPU than the 11900K for the same if not less money, when you buy the new generation that's worse than the last you are just buying it because it has Intel written on the box.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
5,042
He bought the 11900K the instant it was available and then spent the rest of his time trying to justify that purchase.

I think people should buy what they want, but the 10900K was every way a better CPU than the 11900K for the same if not less money, when you buy the new generation that's worse than the last you are just buying it because it has Intel written on the box.

It destroys the 10900 in some encryption workloads, maybe he's a cryptographer :p
 
Top Bottom